Major update on controversial expansion of Hampshire recycling site as hundreds hit out at plans

Planning officers at Hampshire County Council say the application fails to demonstrate a special or local need for development on a greenfield site, which lies in designated countryside outside the settlement boundary.

The proposal, submitted by Silverlake Garage, would expand and reorganise the existing site. Plans include a dismantling building, offices, a research and development facility and a building for removing batteries from electric vehicles.

Several existing buildings would be demolished, and a new access road and staff parking area would also be created.

In a report to councillors, officers said that the development’s layout, scale, mass and design, along with associated lighting and fencing, would appear as an “incongruous and intrusive feature within the countryside”.

They conclude it would cause “unacceptable visual harm” and have a “significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding rural landscape”.

The report also raises concerns about the impact on the setting of Row Ash House, a Grade II listed building located next to the site in Shedfield.

According to planners, the proposed buildings — including a 14.5-metre-high dismantling building and a five-metre-high acoustic fence close to the boundary — would erode the agricultural setting that contributes to the historic character of the property.

While the impact on the listed building is described as “less than substantial”, officers say it is not justified by wider public benefits.

Campaigners from Community Against Silverlake Expansion (CASE), a residents’ group formed by people living in and around Shedfield and the surrounding area, have strongly opposed the scheme.

Speaking on behalf of the group, Simon Barker said the council’s report showed there were “multiple reasons” the expansion should not go ahead.

Mr Barker said: “Hampshire County Council’s report is clear that there are multiple reasons why Silverlake’s proposed expansion is inappropriate.

“The industrialisation of the field into one of Europe’s largest single-site car recycling factories would cause permanent damage to the rural character of the area.

“The 14.5-metre-high main building — with a footprint larger than one and a half international football pitches — together with a minimum five-metre-high acoustic wall, constant movements of heavy goods vehicles, and lighting across the field during winter evenings would be an outrageous intrusion.

“The proposed expansion would destroy the setting of historic buildings adjacent to the site, could lead to the loss of local jobs, and threaten the endangered barbastelle bat.

“The village road infrastructure is not fit for this kind of industrial use. An expansion should instead be located within an established industrial zone, similar to the businesses the proposal is modelled on.”

The plans attracted strong public interest. A total of 471 representations were submitted to the council, including 363 objections and 148 letters of support.

An online petition launched by CASE opposing the development gathered 1,195 signatures as of October 17, 2025.

Councillors on the council’s regulatory committee are expected to make a final decision on the plans on March 18.